There’s no evidence it began on earth either, it may have began in another corner of our galaxy, and spread to here after billions of years. Conversely, it may have begun here, and spread to other planets in and around our solar system, like mars, and perhaps these planets evolved intelligence faster than ours.
In addition, who said life had to begin anyway?
I disagree, I can’t say either theory is more plausible than the other.
The evidence that it evolved on earth is that, well, we’re here. That’s pretty strong evidence, in the absence of any at all that it evolved elsewhere.
The evidence is that life began at some point, because it is not found in the earliest rocks, then there are progressively more complicated forms thereafter.
alot of the things are just missle and aircraft tests by the gov
Yes there’s evidence it evolved here, and that it is here, but there’s no evidence it began here. It may have begun on mars, it may have begun on a planet orbiting Alpha Centurai, we don’t know. If I see a bird on an island, that doesn’t constitute evidence that the bird evolved on that island, he may have migrated from somewhere else.
that could just mean that’s when life came here from somewhere else, perhaps it was journeying here the whole time, but it could only take root and survive and thrive, when conditions were optimal.
Yes, I’m sure that must be the case. But there are all the stories of abductions as well, which very closely parallel accounts of being abducted by faeries in folklore, even down to the stretching of time and memory lapses.
I agree with the devolution thing, that’s brilliant.
Maybe humanoids already fucked up 10,000 other planets. Maybe we keep flying around in UFOs, trying to get it right the next time. So we tried again, for the 10,001st time on Earth. And we’re fucking this one up too. Maybe humans devolved from aliens, isntead of evolved from monkeys.
Maybe we’re thinking about this all backward. Maybe we should be going toward the monkeys instead of toward the aliens. Maybe we are devolving.
I also agree about the elves, goblins, and ogres thing. Maybe goblins and elves are our ancient ancestors on other planets. Maybe our “imagination” of them is just recalling memories passed on to us from our ancient ancestors?
The problem is that you’re postulating things for which there is no evidence, and no need. As it stands, the evidence does indeed point to the fact that life began on earth, because that’s the only place we know it exists.
probably just peeps getting hallucingenect
Maybe, but these experiences seem to all follow a similar pattern, which may mean they represent something fundamental to how our brains are wired and interact with the world.
Yes, maybe we’re the great destroyer of worlds, like Galactus from fantastic four. Perhaps we have to learn to leave things alone, and not mettle and tamper so much with the earth. Is consciousness a sin, something that upsets the balance of nature? Consciousness evolution may be too fast, like sugar, too fast and too sloppy, perhaps biological evolution is far superior, because although its adaptations are slower, they’re more properly adapted to their environment and not over or underadapted. Look how all our ancient ancestors talk of a civilization before the flood, and how man was destroyed by the Gods (nature, or extraterrestrials) for his decadence. Did you know ritual human sacrifice was a means of controlling overpopulation (I read that somewhere, but I’m not sure where and if it’s credible)? I also read somewhere that the Babylonians said the Gods destroyed man for overpopulating the earth. Are we repeating the same mistakes as our ancestors? Should be living a more primitive, savage life?
As for elves and fairies, scientists are finding evidence of little hobbit like humans and the like all the time, so who’s to say these humaniod creatures with big feet and small proportions didn’t coexist with us, and that ancient accounts of ogres and dwarves aren’t based on germs of truth.
Yes, maybe we’re the great destroyer of worlds, like Galactus from fantastic four. Perhaps we have to learn to leave things alone, and not mettle and tamper so much with the earth. Is consciousness a sin, something that upsets the balance of nature? Consciousness evolution may be too fast, too fast and too sloppy, perhaps biological evolution is far superior, because although its adaptations are slower, they’re more properly adapted to their environment and not overadapted. Look how all our ancient ancestors talk of a civilization before the flood, and how man was destroyed by the Gods (nature, or extraterrestrials) for his decadence. Did you know ritual human sacrifice was a means of controlling overpopulation (I read that somewhere, but I’m not sure where and if it’s credible)? I also read somewhere that the Babylonians said the Gods destroyed man in a deleuge for overpopulating the earth. Are we repeating the same mistakes as our ancestors? Should be living a more primitive, savage lifestyle?
As for elves and fairies, scientists are finding evidence of little hobbit like humans and the like all the time, so who’s to say these humaniod creatures with big feet and small proportions didn’t coexist with us, and that ancient accounts of ogres and dwarves aren’t based on germs of truth.
That’s true, if life did begin somewhere, than it’s more probable it began here, because there’s little, I say little because I think there is some mainstream science is conveniently overlooking, little mainstream evidence that it even exists elsewhere.
However, there’s no evidence how it began, or that it began at all.
Are aliens real, it would be naive to think they are not given the sheer magnitude of all the galaxies and stars in the universe. Are they here, perhaps not?You can lock this thread now. 
The evidence that it must have begun is that the earliest rocks don’t contain it.
As for how it began, well, that’s more tricky. While the mechanism is still not fully understood, it seems likely, on current evidence, it was just the culmination of a chance series of events and processes going on since the beginning of time, that is, since the big bang.
That’s not entirely true the building blocks of life Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) are prevalent in quantity in any nebulae formed from 2nd or third etc term stars, so we can at least say the building blocks are present, even if we have to have some very particular goldilocks planet situation to have them “evolve” into RNA and hence replicate to form DNA. We know life is certain given the confines of our solar system, what we have no idea about is if life is at all frequent and what parameters would denote it being likely to exist.
It’s an anthropic principle, but we are certain life began, because we exist.
No, because like I said, that could just mean that’s when it first arrived here.
Mechanism? It would take millions of mechanisms in order to create life simultaneously co-occurring, it’s not even demonstrable that’s it’s possible to create life from nonlife, there’s no empircal, sensual evidence that such a process could occur, and therefore, it’s pure speculation, which frees are minds up to consider alternative theories as to how life could have come to be. When does something become statistically impossible, should we even take 1 out of a 1 with a trillion zeroes proceeding it seriously? And we don’t know if it’s possible at all, it may be zero chance, it’s extremely difficult to quantify, but if it can happen, it’s astronomically implausible.
Are people not reading eyesinthedark and I?
You guys are thinking backward. Maybe we’re not heading toward an end. Maybe we’re heading toward a beginning. Maybe the universe already ENDED and we are moving forward to the BEGINNING. That’s what devolution is. We keep going extinct, throughout the galaxy. We keep invading more and more planets, but messing things up and going extinct.
Start from extinction, start backward. Maybe humans and our alien ancestors are moving toward the BEGINNING, not toward the END.
Maybe the end of the universe has happened, but we’re going toward the beginning. It is the beginning that has yet to occur. There is no beginning, there is only end. That’s why there’s no scientific evidence for beginnings. A beginning doesn’t exist. But the end does exist.
I am I think he’s right hence there is no need to lodge any contention to it. 
No, because you’re just shifting the problem somewhere else, for which there is no evidence. Either it began on earth or it began elsewhere. The problems of probability remain the same in both cases. One scenario has a vast multitude of evidence to support it, the other has none at all.
actually there is some level of evidence that life can come from non-life (or at least that life isn’t required for life), given that both exist and we know one is older